Pageants are STUPID.
Debate Rounds (5)
I grew up in a strictly Catholic household, and today I consider myself as a non-denominational Christian. Pageants are a part of my life, and they have been ever since I was a child. I do not participate, I just watch. A great number of Americans and of people from various other places around the globe share the experience of watching yearly Christmas pageants, and while the audience members are predominantly Christian, people of any religion are allowed to, and do in fact attend. It's a religious experience for some, and "just another show" for others. Either way, both the religious and the artsy enjoy them. They're inspirational, and the gathering around the event of a pageant is one of joy, and even strangers can't help but to relate to each other as members of the human race. It's not just about the religion, or the actors, or the lines or the props and set, it's about understanding. It's about the not-at-all awkward exchange of smiles from one foreign face to another as all ears listen to the same story. It's about that very thing that makes us human, that has no true name to describe it in the English language, but the closest we have are a bundle of names. It's empathy, it's love, and it is emotion.
Most who have actually attended a pageant will disagree with my opponent. They've felt that connection to people they don't even know, that commonality between every person on Earth that doesn't need to be consciously labelled to exist. Some, however, like my opponent, haven't felt that.
Why do we even hold pageants? What's the point? And yes, there is a point. Art has a point. Every drawing, be it masterpiece or scribble, every piece of literature, be it novel or letter, and every performance, be it pageant or kindergarten class play has a purpose. It's not entertainment, though all three do just that. It's not financial prosperity, although great artists tend to be quite successful in that area, but it's the psychology of it. Show me a classic that does not give life to the words of Freud or his predecessors, and I will show you a composition that is not a classic. The words we write, say or put to vivid colors on a canvas are emotion. They're what you'd find if you took a figurative glance inside your vulnerable little human head, and they are, arguably, the point of life.
Think about it. On your death bed, are you going to proudly grasp the hand of your fortune and thank God for giving you a four story mansion with gold pillars and pearls? Of course not. Whether you've got a billion bucks or you've hardly made a buck, you won't care once you're dead or dying. Things that will matter are things we care about, in more than a superficial, greedy attachment. We care about our family, those we love, and though love is not an emotion, as emotions come and go throughout the day while love does not, it certainly does take place in your mind, hence it is psychology; it is, more directly, philosophy--its most stereotypical topic. We care about our legacy, the songs, drawings, books, plays and pageants we've composed and that are floating about the world, and will do the same when we ourselves are gone.
Most of you won't go so far to say that art is not the point of life, and it isn't; however, art is the child of our mind's creations and inner workings, which ARE the quite possible "points" of life, and so art is therefore directly related to it.
If you don't share my opinion, you're not wrong. You're actually 100% correct, and so am I, because an opinion cannot be wrong. An opinion may conflict with opinions of morality, but then again, morality is an opinion too. And with all these opinions, we tend to defend our own, because we are CONVINCED it's right, above all the others. Well, it is right, but it's no better than that of the person next to you's opinion. That is where I'd like to point out my opponent's argument's hole. "Pageants are stupid". Congratulations, you're right" in your mind. Do I think pageants are stupid? No, I most certainly do not. Am I wrong? Yes" in your mind. In mine own and in everyone else's who shares my thoughts on this, I'm not wrong at all, which is why you cannot make such a broad and careless statement as, "pageants are stupid", on a debating site, whose debates run largely by objectivity and factual evidence. Opinion is not a fact, and disagreement with that statement is, in fact, wrong.
Look, my point is that pageants have meaning to a lot of people, and to a lot of people they don't. Some enjoy it, some don't. Some think (key word: think) they're stupid, some don't. And all of those things are perfectly fine, they make you no less of a person, nor do they make you "wrong", but saying something so broad as my opponent has is assuming that the rest of the world agrees with you. I assure you, they do not.
The stupid (or not) pageants are art--emotion expressed. They are gatherings of joy and love, entertainment and religious praise. They are tradition, innocent acts to lighten hearts, never to stir anger of any form, though I suppose that is also an opinion.
I have no meaning or intention to come off smart and intimidate my opponent. I will, however, continue to refer to you as my opponent, because that's what you are. This is a debate, and you are my opponent. In all actuality, it doesn't really matter what I call you. I could call you a frog if I wanted to, it doesn't change what you are. I fail to make a connection to "though I am from Oahu that does not mean all of us talk Moke". That neither fits in with the debate nor any personal attacks you assume I'm making against you. I assure you, I am not.
Pageants and human trafficking are in no way related. I could define MY idea of human trafficking, but for validity's sake, I'll take the definition of the term from here (http://oag.ca.gov...), a government website.
"Human trafficking is a modern form of slavery. It involves controlling a person through force, fraud, or coercion to exploit the victim for forced labor, sexual exploitation, or both. Human trafficking strips victims of their freedom and violates our nation"s promise that every person in the United States is guaranteed basic human rights. It is also a crime".
Slavery: Pageants are not a form of slavery. Participants participate by choice, and receive compensation for their work.
Control: Pageants do not control by force, fraud, or coercion. As a said, it is an activity of choice, and all taking part have every right to leave at any time.
Exploitation: Models are not exploited. Someone else is not benefitting unfairly from their labor. They choose to take part, and they reap the benefits of their own work.
Freedom/rights: No rights are taken away, at all.
Crime: Pageants are entirely legal.
"In Human Sales, you look pretty, get priced and win your freedom or at the very least, money. In Pageantry, you look pretty, get judged on and win a trophy or at the very least, money". Correct, except that in human trafficking, you rarely if ever "win" your freedom, at least not without the help of the law, nor do you receive money as a reward. The criminal behind your imprisonment may receive payment, but you do not. I'll state again: human sales is illegal, forced, and basically an equivalent to slavery. Pageants are none of these things. You choose to be in a pageant, you get judged (by judges that also get paid for what they do. Every competition--and pageants are competitions--has a judge, unless the winner is chosen by score, or some other method), and you win or you lose. Then you go home, do what you want, and you can chose to, or not to, join the next pageant that comes up. If you do join the next one, you can drop out any time you please without consequences.
"I am a feminist and I do not like it when women are being judged on. Are you a male?". I do not consider myself a feminist, but I also dislike the general idea of judging women" and also men, but sometimes it's necessary, many times it is requested, and ALL the time, it is there. Whether you recognize it or not, you judge women also, as well as men. So do I. So does every reader of this argument. It's within the definition of being human; we are emotional beings, living in a most subjective and opinionated world. The degrees vary, but all of us judge, and if we didn't, we would be robots, living off of logic only; not creativity, not feeling, and certainly not emotion. We would all think the same. It would be a completely different world than the one we live in. Without judgment, there could be no art.
On the question of my gender, I refuse to answer that, because first of all, it is not at all relevant to the argument, and second, if any voter or opponent wishes to know the answer, they could open my profile. It's public information, but once again, it doesn't matter.
"I apologize for intruding on your own life but I am only me": what does that even mean? First of all, you weren't intruding on my life, and I never said that. You were, however, asking irrelevant questions, that I see no need to answer.
"Please do not correct me on how I speak because I take great offense from that whether you mean it or not": I never corrected you on how you speak. I corrected your faulty comparison of pageantry to human trafficking, which I believe I had every right to, because the comparison was entirely false, and needed to be corrected. I've also corrected you on your irrelevant questions. I have not corrected you on how you speak, but I have corrected you on WHAT you've said.
"If the title of this debate bothers yo some then why did you choose to debate?": I chose to debate because that's what a debate is. You argue your point, BECAUSE of the fact you disagree. If you want somebody to suck up to you and cater to your opinion, get off of debate.org.
"I like the fact that you dislike the idea of judging other people b you don't like it then why are you judging me?": I'm not, HOWEVER, you ARE judging me. You really have no right to accuse me of judging you, without sounding like a hypocrite. Let me point out quotes from a little earlier in your argument" "You strike me as the type of person who wants to seem smart to intimidate their "opponent"", "Are you a male?".
"There is no definition to being a human being": Actually, there is. "1. any individual of the genus Homo, "especially a member of the species Homo sapiens. 2. a person, especially as distinguished from other animals or as representing the human species: living conditions not fit for human beings; a very generous human being" (Dictionary.com). I know what you're getting at, though. It's hard to put a label on our entire species. I still don't know how this relates to the topic, though.
Lilyamina forfeited this round.
Lilyamina forfeited this round.
10438 forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.